robotwarsfandomcom-20200215-history
Category talk:Robots that failed to qualify for any wars
Just to be perfectly clear Pressure and Draven were removed from this category although they are believed to failed their attempts to qualify for the main series. Just to be perfectly clear, to be in this category must the machine in question have failed to appear in the Extremes as well as the main series? ManUCrazy 18:04, November 1, 2009 (UTC) :That is correct. Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 19:53, November 1, 2009 (UTC) ::According to the description, this category is for robots that failed to qualify for the UK Championship, but it's already been said that robots from Extreme should not be included. Are we including robots that were in other versions of the show in this category, like PulverizeR? If not then we should make the description more accurate. Christophee (talk) 12:38, March 29, 2010 (UTC) :::The key word is '''any. Thats the thing. TG (t ' 14:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::I thought that might be the case but the description wasn't very clear. I'll sort that out now. Christophee (talk) 14:20, April 6, 2010 (UTC) Individual categories? Just a quick little suggestion that you can choose to ignore but do you think it could be a good idea to have individual categories for robots that F2Q e.g. Robot that Failed to Qualify for the Fourth Wars, Robot that Failed to Qualify for the Fifth Wars, you get the idea. If that did happen would it also be possible for us to add robots such as Agent Orange into one of these categories. What's your thoughts (which'll probably be negative) Diotoir the son of nemesis (talk) 19:40, January 26, 2016 (UTC) :Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Don't be too quick to think we'll dismiss your ideas, we value everything you've done for us so far. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 00:46, January 27, 2016 (UTC) ::Ooo okay. Diotoir the son of nemesis (talk) 09:29, January 27, 2016 (UTC) :::I'd be happy to go along with that idea. Christophee (talk) 11:08, January 27, 2016 (UTC) No offence, but I'd be against that idea. We have the list of robots that failed to qualify on this forum http://robotwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Robots_that_Failed_to_Qualify, and there are so many robots that would go into the categories for Series 4 onwards. I think it's better to stay with what we have. Drop Zone mk2 (talk) 13:30, January 27, 2016 (UTC) : I don't find the no. of pages that fit in to a category to be a valid excuse. Plus that's a forum, ordinary people who just want to view the wiki may never find that particular forum or even acknowledges it's assistance. Diotoir the son of nemesis (talk) 15:51, January 27, 2016 (UTC) Well, I might be in a minority here, but I'm still against this category. Not just because we already have the full list, but also, if we did this category, what would we do for robots we know about but don't have pages for, in cases such as Demolition Doris (the DisConstructor team's entry into Series 5) or Psycho (the Siren team's entry into Series 4). On top of that, the list we have allows us to list robots we only have a name for. As for the arguement that many people will not find that page as it is a forum page, don't forget there is a link to it on the qualifiers page, making it easily accessible for people who don't usually use the Forum. I think we should keep the list we have, or turn it into a mainspace article. Drop Zone mk2 (talk) 10:15, January 29, 2016 (UTC) :Like I said I'll wait until one more person votes in favour ( or more people vote against) before I do these individual categories Diotoir the son of nemesis (talk) 10:37, January 29, 2016 (UTC) Votes Seeing as two admins are in favour and only one user against I say it will happen at this rate, I'll wait until one more user says in favour for the categories. :Are there enough bots in each series category to justify this? Jimlaad43(talk) 17:08, January 27, 2016 (UTC) ::We do have a category which has only two robots in and we I think even had one with only one robot in! Plus I'm sure their are enough for S4,S5,S6 and S7, not so sure about S3 but I think their may be enough. Diotoir the son of nemesis (talk) 17:28, January 27, 2016 (UTC) In favour *[[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] *Christophee Against *Drop Zone mk2 Templates on robots that failed to qualify I have a new proposal for a template on robots that failed to qualify for a series. Looking at some articles, such as Cataclysmic Variabot, readers probably did not know that C.V. failed to qualify for Series 5 and 6, unless they read the Series Record carefully. Even then, they could sometimes miss out on that information. The other issue I have noticed is that the articles detailing robots that never appeared on the show (like Knuckles), are unlikely to ever be read by most readers. This is because most robots that appeared on the show do not list these robots in the "Read more" section at the bottom of the page. Even this category here isn't viewed by enough readers, so doesn't solve this issue. I believe adding a template (or templates) that list all the robots that failed to qualify for each series, in the design of templates like Series 3 Competitors, would be useful. It would prove helpful for all parties; It gives recognition to the roboteers who tried their hardest to appear on the show, it makes these articles more likely to be viewed by the readers whom may not be informed of these robots otherwise. It also allows some of our newer editors a chance to update these pages, making this a win-win situation in my opinion. Of course, we should only add robots that have an article on the wiki, that is a given. If anyone is against adding more templates, we could always add a section to existing templates (like the 2016 competitors). I however, personally find that there are a lot of robots that failed to qualify, especially in Series 6 and 7, to the point where I believe new templates will help to keep the existing ones clean. So what do you think of my proposal? SpaceManiac888 (Talk) 19:38, September 3, 2016 (UTC) :Before you guys mention this, I do realise that it is similar to Diotoir's proposal above (which I thought should have gone through). However, I find that categories are very small when compared to a template, so I think this similar proposal is better. SpaceManiac888 (Talk) 19:41, September 3, 2016 (UTC) ::The problem is that we can never hope to know all the robots that failed to qualify, so the template would feel somewhat incomplete when finished, unlike categories which always expand. I'm not sure. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 21:17, September 3, 2016 (UTC) :::I do agree with Toast here, there are so many robots that have F2Q and so many we don't know about and/or we don't have enough information about, it would be incomplete and as Toast said the categories can be expanded upon. However, robots like Tor don't have a page and are instead mentioned on the St. Agro article meaning that if we were to put a category there it could lead to some confusion.Diotoir the son of nemesis (talk) 06:33, September 4, 2016 (UTC) ::::Well, after an introduction into A-Level subjects, I completely forgot about this. In my opinion, we have more than enough robots to make it feel "complete-ish", so I do not think that will be an issue (especially in Series 6, 7 and 2016). As for the other problems raised, I feel that adding a template may help counter-act the unknown competitors issue; after all, one former builder might stumble upon the templates, ask why their robot isn't on this list and, hopefully, provide some information on their robot(s). As for Tor and other robots that link to parent articles like St. Agro, they should not be linked, because as mentioned above, they should have their own articles first. ::::Speaking of Tor, surely we have enough information to warrant an article on it? We have an image, we know who the team is, we can determine the design and we know the main weapon. Plus, after looking at the Tor section of St. Agro, there is more information to be found. SpaceManiac888 (Talk) 16:48, September 8, 2016 (UTC)